This Washington
Morning Jolt: Court Bounces City Attorney's Case Against McKenna
We have an early loser today—Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes.
The Washington State Supreme Court soundly dismissed Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes' case against Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna today, 9-0.
Holmes was suing McKenna over the Republican AG's decision to join the multistate lawsuit against the feds' health care reform law. Holmes contended that McKenna didn't have the authority to represent the city of Seattle in his effort to undo the federal legislation.
The Court didn't rule on McKenna's opinion of the health care reform law—"We need not and do not express any opinion on the constitutionality or wisdom of the health care reform legislation, nor do we express any view on the wisdom of the attorney general’s decision to make the State a party to litigation challenging the constitutionality of the legislation"—but said simply that McKenna had the authority to move forward.
The Court concluded:
Read the Court's decision here .
Labeling McKenna's suit "Tea-Party-inspired," Holmes issued a statement strongly disagreeing with the ruling:
I respectfully disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision. Attorney General McKenna dragged Washington state into a Tea-Party-inspired lawsuit that will, if successful, prevent millions of Americans from obtaining the health care they will have access to under the Affordable Care Act. He did this against the express wishes of and without first consulting the Governor, the Insurance Commissioner, the House Speaker, and the Senate Majority Leader. Indeed, Rob McKenna has disingenuously tried to have it both ways by purporting to support certain parts of the Affordable Care Act while using our state’s name in a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the entire law. [PubliCola pointed out this contradiction back in February.—Eds .]
McKenna also issued a statement:
The Washington State Supreme Court soundly dismissed Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes' case against Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna today, 9-0.
Holmes was suing McKenna over the Republican AG's decision to join the multistate lawsuit against the feds' health care reform law. Holmes contended that McKenna didn't have the authority to represent the city of Seattle in his effort to undo the federal legislation.
The Court didn't rule on McKenna's opinion of the health care reform law—"We need not and do not express any opinion on the constitutionality or wisdom of the health care reform legislation, nor do we express any view on the wisdom of the attorney general’s decision to make the State a party to litigation challenging the constitutionality of the legislation"—but said simply that McKenna had the authority to move forward.
The Court concluded:
The framers of the Washington Constitution designed an executive branch of government that dispersed authority among several officers. In addition to assigning certain duties to each officer, the framers left additional duties to be determined by future generations in the exercise of self-government. The people of the state of Washington have, by statute, vested the attorney general with broad authority, and Attorney General McKenna's decision to sue to enjoin the enforcement of the PPACA falls within that broad authority. As such, Attorney General McKenna has no mandatory duty to withdraw the State from the multistate litigation. The city of Seattle's petition for a writ of mandamus must, accordingly, be denied.
Read the Court's decision here .
Labeling McKenna's suit "Tea-Party-inspired," Holmes issued a statement strongly disagreeing with the ruling:
I respectfully disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision. Attorney General McKenna dragged Washington state into a Tea-Party-inspired lawsuit that will, if successful, prevent millions of Americans from obtaining the health care they will have access to under the Affordable Care Act. He did this against the express wishes of and without first consulting the Governor, the Insurance Commissioner, the House Speaker, and the Senate Majority Leader. Indeed, Rob McKenna has disingenuously tried to have it both ways by purporting to support certain parts of the Affordable Care Act while using our state’s name in a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the entire law. [PubliCola pointed out this contradiction back in February.—Eds .]
McKenna also issued a statement:
I’m pleased the court affirmed the authority and responsibility of the Attorney General to challenge the constitutionality of federal laws that threaten the constitutional rights of this state and its people,” McKenna said. “It’s important that the state’s constitutionally-established, independently-elected Attorney General – whomever it may be — have the authority to protect the legal rights of the state and its people in the years to come.
